Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools*
- Journal
- MIS Quarterly
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.2307/249742 →Countries where authors are citing Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools*
This map shows the geographic impact of Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools*. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools* with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools* more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools*
This network shows the impact of Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools*. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools*.
About Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools*
This paper, published in 1997, received 662 indexed citations . Written by William J. Kettinger and James T. C. Teng covering the research area of Management Information Systems, Management of Technology and Innovation and Information Systems. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Management Information Systems (564 citations), Information Systems (211 citations) and Strategy and Management (107 citations). Published in MIS Quarterly.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.2307/249742.